Monday, June 17, 2013

Immigration Legislation in the House of Representatives--Update

Tomorrow the
Senate will continue debate on The Border
Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act (S.B.
744). As we pay attention to Senate proceedings, we must also be aware of what
is happening in the House where legislation has also been introduced and is
scheduled for markup beginning this week. Unlike the Senate, the House is
taking a piecemeal approach to reforming our nation’s immigration laws. This
means that several pieces of legislation have been introduced to address specific
components of our immigration system instead of a comprehensive piece of
legislation. Tomorrow, the House Judiciary Committee will begin markup of the SAFE Act (H.R. 2278), which was
introduced by Representative Gowdy. Following the SAFE Act, the Committee will begin markup of Representative
Goodlatte’s Agricultural Guest Worker Act
(H.R. 1773).

H.R. 2278,
the SAFE Act introduced by
Representative Gowdy, would bring a dangerous expansion of interior
enforcement, detention, and deportation that would further criminalize our
immigrant brothers and sisters. Below is a summary of key sections of the SAFE Act put together by the National
Immigration Law Center. The bill would:

Grant states and localities full authority to create, implement, and
enforce their own criminal and civil penalties for federal immigration
violations so long as the penalties applied do not exceed those under
federal law. This provision would directly overturn the Supreme Court’s
decision last year in Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012), which
reaffirmed that states cannot enact their own criminal penalties for violations
of federal immigration law, even when the state law mirrors the federal
provision. Allowing all 50 states and countless localities to enact their own
immigration enforcement laws is unworkable and will decrease public safety and
adversely impact our nation’s foreign relations.

Require the federal government to assume custody over every person
identified by a state or local government as inadmissible or deportable upon
request by such agency. Such persons must be held in detention
in a federal, contract, state, or local prison, jail, detention center, or
other facility. This section takes away the ability of the Secretary of
Homeland Security to exercise discretion in deciding whether a person should be
released on bond, under an order or supervision, or on their own recognizance
rather than continuing to detain a person.

Allow state or localities to detain people who are inadmissible or
deportable for 14 days after the completion of their jail or prison sentences
in order to transfer the person to ICE custody. This
unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of detention authority hinges on
an untrained local officer’s determination of whether a person is inadmissible
or deportable. This section also allows state and local law enforcement
officers, untrained in federal immigration law, to issue an immigration hold
(detainer) and to detain the individual indefinitely until the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) assumes custody. This completely unchecked authority to
detain individuals in prison for 14 days or longer will result in the prolonged
detention of U.S. citizens and lawfully present immigrants.

Make changes that would expand the failed 287(g) program. This
provision strips away federal control by requiring that DHS accede to any state
or local jurisdiction’s request to participate in the program, except where
good cause exists to refuse participation. Under current law, either DHS or thestate
or local party to the 287(g) agreement may terminate for any reason, however
this provision restricts DHS’ ability to terminate. This is particularly
problematic given the many documented abuses by deputized state and local
officers that have occurred under the program.

Prohibit states and localities from limiting compliance with ICE
detainer requests and from issuing policies, resolutions, or ordinances that
restrict local cooperation with federal law enforcement. This section is a
direct response to a number of jurisdictions—most prominently Cook County,
Illinois—that have adopted policies or ordinances setting guidelines for when
local law enforcement will extend the detention of a person based on an ICE
detainer request. This undermines the ability of state and local agencies to
direct their policing resources based upon the public safety needs of the
communities they serve.

Dramatically expand the crime of illegal entry to include virtually
anyone who entered without inspection. This section removes the traditional
limit on the crime of illegal entry, which only criminalized individuals
apprehended while entering the United States and instead makes it a continuing
offense until the time an individual is discovered by federal officials. This
would dramatically expand the number of individuals subject to this criminal
penalty and comes shockingly close to criminalizing unlawful presence in the
United States.

Attempts to authorize the indefinite detention of persons who have been
ordered removed. In Zadvydas v. Davis, 33 U.S. 678 (2001), the Supreme Court
held that indefinite detention of a non- citizen who has been ordered removed,
but whose removal is not significantly likely to occur in the reasonably
foreseeable future, would raise serious constitutional concerns. This section
attempts to overturn the Zadvydas decision except for a narrow category of
cases. Worse the provision also appears to restrict court review of indefinite
detention for individuals who cannot be removed and limits the decision to
continue to detain to the sole discretion of DHS.

Create new grounds of inadmissibility and deportability for persons whom
DHS knows or “has reason to believe” are current or former members of a
criminal gang. Such persons would be subject to mandatory detention and
barred from receiving asylum and Temporary Protected Status. This would sweep
in people who have never been convicted of a crime and are merely suspected of
being in a gang, as well as people who are erroneously listed on gang databases
due to living in neighborhoods with gang activities.

About Me

The Presbyterian Office of Public Witness is the public policy information and advocacy office of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Its task is to advocate, and help the church to advocate, the social witness perspectives and policies of the Presbyterian General Assembly. The church has a long history of applying these biblically and theologically-based insights to issues that affect the public — maintaining a public policy ministry in the nation's capital since 1946.
Reformed theology teaches that because a sovereign God is at work in all the world, the church and Christian citizens should be concerned about public policy. In addition, Presbyterian forefather John Calvin wrote, "Civil magistry is a calling not only holy and legitimate, but by far the most sacred and honorable in human life."